The high cost and value of the 17 TS-E is for use in Architectural - it will also make a good, hard to filter landscape lens at a fixed (i.e. very wide) 17mm.
Consider the 24II TS-E and the Zeiss 17-35 - the Zeiss is outstanding for landscape from 17 to 24mm - great edge and corner IQ. A very versatile combination that lends itself to landscape. The 24II has a very close MDF, with tilt makes a great close-up lens and also is able to do 3 frame vertical panos in a snap - add a TC 1.4 for 34mm shots, but does increase CA a bit.
I find 24mm much more useful for landscape photography in the US southwest and rocky mountains - 17mm is great for opening up big sky shots but lacks detail in wide grand vista type scenes. The detail in a Bryce or Grand canyon type scene get lost at 17mm.
I did research on the Zeiss PC 35 quite a while back when the ZF 35 became available - comments from owners of that lens were stating less IQ than from other Zeiss 35 primes. You may also want to consider the Zeiss 35-70 - very versatile and cost effective. JMO.
There is also another 24mm shift option that I discovered recently, Oly 24mm Shift. I have not been able to get any online reviews on it but 16-9 35mm Shift Comparison did have a review of the 35mm version and it compared favorably to the Zeiss - Zeiss still wins but the Oly compared favorably. Current pricing puts it between the mkI and mkII versions of the Canon 24mm TS-E.
A few folks I pm'd stated that it was better than the mkI of the Canon 24 TS-E. It currently in transit to me as I type so can't provide any solid data yet. I'll post when available.
I have experience with the OM24. Am actually currently selling a copy of that lens. I think your description is fair in that it is better than the Mark I of the Canon 24mm T/S (especially in the corners), and is a beautiful lens with excellent build quality and color. However, I suspect the new version of the Canon 24 T/S is overall superior to the OM--at least in absolute resolution.
Luvwine wrote:
I have experience with the OM24. Am actually currently selling a copy of that lens. I think your description is fair in that it is better than the Mark I of the Canon 24mm T/S (especially in the corners), and is a beautiful lens with excellent build quality and color. However, I suspect the new version of the Canon 24 T/S is overall superior to the OM--at least in absolute resolution.
Just got a used TS-E 24 mm lens Mk I lens for a decent price. My copy is much sharper than I expected it to be, also in the shifted frame corners. This lens is capable of great landscape shots especially when shifted fully left and right and then merging 2-3 phtos together as panorama. No distortions at all - in opposite to other ultra-wide angle rectilinear lenses.
I am aware of the many cited reviews stating that the Mk I version of the TS-E 24 mm lens is not sharp enough etc. I do not agree with this - at least for me the lens is more than sharp enough! Well, the new 17 mm TS-E lens is probably great.....but it is very questionable if $2500 of cost is worth it.
Well, I want to thank those of you who have responded as I have bought some glass. Just to update, I sold my OM 24 shift, my Canon 24 TS-E (version I), my 70-200 2.8L IS and my 35L 1.4 and bought a Canon 17L TS-E (got one used in mint condition to try out for a while and if it is too wide, I will sell but so far I like it tho I have not had an opportunity to really test it out yet), a Zeiss ZE 21 2.8, and I have ordered the Zeiss ZE 35/2 and 50/2. I will try these out and see what I want to keep. I really like the Zeiss 21 so far. I am not certain about the Canon 17L yet as it has a learning curve but seems like it has potential. I may eventually want to swap it for a 24 TS-E-II but we will see. What I am having trouble deciding is whether to keep the 16-35L-II as the 17L TS-E is better as is the Zeiss 21, but then my bag is heavier....time will tell, I guess. The age old debate between quality and convenience or quality and flexibility of framing versus need for cropping never ends.
I miss zooms when I have to change lenses... Then I remember that I was never happy with the performance of certain zooms at at least one part of their focal range. I now zoom with my feet, cos there are no affordable zooms for my camera
In my opinion the best idea is to think practically. If you need to carry a lot of glass, buy compact lenses and sacrifice some performance and max aperture. If you need the aperture or peak performance, Take a couple of lenses and compromise in your composition. I know, easier said than done and I am the worst for acquiring new lenses and wanting to carry them all with me!
rick300d wrote:
There is also another 24mm shift option that I discovered recently, Oly 24mm Shift. I have not been able to get any online reviews on it but 16-9 35mm Shift Comparison did have a review of the 35mm version and it compared favorably to the Zeiss - Zeiss still wins but the Oly compared favorably. Current pricing puts it between the mkI and mkII versions of the Canon 24mm TS-E.
A few folks I pm'd stated that it was better than the mkI of the Canon 24 TS-E. It currently in transit to me as I type so can't provide any solid data yet. I'll post when available. ...Show more →
I recently sold an Oly 24 shift quite cheaply on B&S. I didn't think it was even close to the 24 TSE II. The copy I had wasn't as good as a 24 TSE I. Great looking glass though.
Mike K
I thought the Oly shift was better overall than the Canon 24mm version I. However, I thought the Canon was better in the center of the frame while the Oly was better in the corners and had better color. The Canon could tilt and shift while the Oly could shift in both directions on the fly unlike the Canon. I figured that neither were sufficient for the ever more demanding high megapixel sensors going forward. As for the 35mm, I have never tried the Oly 35, but do have the Zeiss 35 PC. I like that lens, tho I have recently bought a used version of the 35mm Zeiss ZE and am looking forward to see how the new and old stack up. I may keep them both or sell one--not sure. I like the Zeiss 35mm PC, tho like all Zeiss lenses, it is a bit heavy and does not tilt.
thrice--I dunno if you are the worst about buying lenses and wanting to carry them all with you. I suspect you will get a lot of competition round here!
Luvwine wrote:
Well, I want to thank those of you who have responded as I have bought some glass. Just to update, I sold my OM 24 shift, my Canon 24 TS-E (version I), my 70-200 2.8L IS and my 35L 1.4 and bought a Canon 17L TS-E (got one used in mint condition to try out for a while and if it is too wide, I will sell but so far I like it tho I have not had an opportunity to really test it out yet), a Zeiss ZE 21 2.8, and I have ordered the Zeiss ZE 35/2 and 50/2. I will try these out and see what I want to keep. I really like the Zeiss 21 so far. I am not certain about the Canon 17L yet as it has a learning curve but seems like it has potential. I may eventually want to swap it for a 24 TS-E-II but we will see. What I am having trouble deciding is whether to keep the 16-35L-II as the 17L TS-E is better as is the Zeiss 21, but then my bag is heavier....time will tell, I guess. The age old debate between quality and convenience or quality and flexibility of framing versus need for cropping never ends....Show more →
I really like my 17 TS-E and carry it along with my 14-24G and ZF 35/2 and ZE 50/2 MP.
Saw Boris's comparison shots of 17 vs. ZE 21 but wouldn't mind seeing some more.
My 16-35L mk1 never made it back into my bag after getting the 14-24G and 35/2.
I have only kept if for those rare cases when I want AF wide angle.
From limited shooting of Mark's copy of the 24-TS-Emk2 it seemed like although the 24 maybe slightly sharper in the center than the 17, that the 17 did better in the corners when shifted. Would be nice if someone else could confirm this. The 17 with a 1.4 TC is good enough for me for those times when I need a 24 T/S. Still the new 24 TS-E is a sweet lens though.
wayne: Thanks for the comments. Sounds like our bags look quite similar except I will substitute the Zeiss 21 for your Nikon 14-24. I could post some images of the 17mm and 21mm compared to the 16-35-II on the same target, but they are just test shots of a brick wall and not very interesting. Hopefully, I will get some field use of these lenses next weekend....
